Against Popesplaining

Even if you consider yourself an enthusiastic and faithful Catholic of any stripe you are not obligated to defend every utterance in every papal interview or even every papal homily or declaration.

Popes – all popes – can say things that are wrong, incorrect, ill-informed, narrow, short-sighted and more reflective of their personal biases, interests and limitations than the broader, deeper tradition of Catholicism.

Which is why, traditionally, popes didn’t do a lot of public talking.

Quite a few issues have popped up recently – well, more or less continuously over the past three years, but I want to begin by addressing what I see as the fundamental, underlying problem apart from any particular priorities Pope Francis may have. That problem is the importance given to papal statements. Papal paragraphs. Papal sentences, participles and even papal pauses.

All of which require continual, exhaustive and exhausting rounds of what I’ve come call Popesplaining.

It’s a perfect storm, really, and Francis is merely the moment when the winds have reached their height (we hope).

The storm begin with constant, instant communication. We are accustomed to thinking of this as an advantage in terms of evangelization. Hey! The Pope can Tweet! You can get his daily thoughts in your inbox! You can Skype with the Pope!

The enthusiasm seems to be misplaced. When you combine instant communication with the other winds coursing through the the storm – a celebrity culture and a culture (even a church culture) in which we are told to seek God in the act of relating to other people’s presence and personalities above all, well, there’s your storm, one in which the focus of faith becomes the speaker rather than the Word.

Eager evangelizers then take advantage of this moment by hanging the faith on the (to some) charismatic individual, and so we have bishops falling all over themselves, sometimes in hilariously awkward ways, making sure we know that they’re trying to be more like Pope Francis, books inviting us to consider what Pope Francis would do, spiritual initiatives inviting us to “walk with Francis” and a Vatican website that used to feature the liturgical season on its splash page, but has not done so much since 2013.

Perhaps you see this as a positive development. Guess what again. It’s not.

I fail to see how this current mania helps address Protestant concerns that Catholicism holds the Pope up above Jesus and Biblical faith.

Perhaps it was the same under John Paul II and Benedict, but the pope was the center of almost every conversation in Rome. Now, I bow to no one in my admiration for Papa Francesco, but at times I wondered if there was anything else to talk about! It reminded me of a group pilgrimage to Lourdes, when it seemed that the only names on our lips were those of Mary and St. Bernadette. After one Gospel reading at Mass, a Jesuit companion turned to me and said, “Ah, Jesus! I’ve missed him!”

One day I was returning from an appointment with a Vatican official to the Jesuit curia, a few hundred feet from St. Peter’s Square. As I made my way to my room I passed the larger-than-life statue of Jesus which stands on a high ledge overlooking the Curia garden. Underneath the statue was the legend: “Salus Tua Ego Sum.” Yes, I don’t know much Latin. But this was easy: “I am your salvation.” And I thought, well, yes, not the pope. It was a good reminder for someone like me, who idolizes Francis.

This is pretty crazy, but it’s also predictable. Students of religious movements and even students of sociology and mass psychology could predict it: When you strip principles away, personalities and emotional connections step in to fill the vacuum.

Religious history, and Catholic history is not an exception here, lurches between the institutional intellectual and charismatic or enthusiastic elements of faith. But the beauty of Catholicism has always involved an eventual balance between these elements. The pendulum swings too far, corrections pop up here and there – in reform movements, devotional movements and the giving of permission and suppression.

What holds it together is not a human person, but a Person. We look to Jesus, through this mystery of his Body, to gather us in truth and life. We believe that the Church is not an accidental human development. We believe that fallen creation has been redeemed by Christ and that every kind of brokennesss is answered by the Way, the Truth and the Life, embodied, as he willed it – through his Body, the Church.

The Church – in its teachings, sacramental life and spiritual Tradition – does not stand in the way of human flourishing and redemption, but is the way to it, because Jesus is the way.

People are drawn to the Church through the writing of its great spiritual writers, the power of its sacramental life, the beauty of its material presence in the world and the witness of its saints and martyrs because through it all, their questions are answered, their fears are assuaged and their brokenness is healed. In Christ, through his presence on earth.

The role of servant leadership, from laity to vowed to ordained, is to serve the Way, the Truth and the Life.

This is what Jerome wrote: “I decided to consult the Chair of Peter, where that faith is found exalted by the lips of an Apostle; I now come to ask for nourishment for my soul there, where once I received the garment of Christ. I follow no leader save Christ, so I enter into communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter, for this I know is the rock upon which the Church is built” (cf. Le lettere I, 15, 1-2).

Dear brothers and sisters, in the apse of St Peter’s Basilica, as you know, is the monument to the Chair of the Apostle, a mature work of Bernini. It is in the form of a great bronze throne supported by the statues of four Doctors of the Church: two from the West, St Augustine and St Ambrose, and two from the East: St John Chrysostom and St Athanasius.

It is not that bishops or popes should not be active or creative leaders – it is that the kind of leadership Jesus calls for is servant-leadership, in service to the truth of the Gospel and in service to the Body of Christ. Always wary of placing the self, rather than Christ, at the center. Embedding oneself and one’s decision-making in the deep, broad life of the People of God, supported, as Benedict alludes to above, by the Spirit working through that great Tradition.

The relative formality of apostolic Christianity – for that is what Catholicism is – is about safeguarding the Faith against the temptation to allow the priorities of one particular age or individual from having too much influence and for allowing “space” as it were, underneath that highest level for various movements, influences and emphases to arise, dialogue, be refined, embraced, discarded and take their place.

A formalized liturgy is an expression of this: a liturgy in which the ministers are the servants of the Word and Sacrament, not designers of it, imposing their “vision” on others. Liturgical vestment and papal ceremony is also an expression of it – we say, “Oh, it’s so stiff and confining and formal” – well, it’s supposed to be. It’s supposed to give embodiment to various aspects of the faith and more or less bury the personality of the individual bearing it all so that Christ can shine forth.

It sort of works.

And it works to the extent that the organic nature of these bodily processes is respected on all sides.

Do you see what I’m saying?

I’m saying that the Pope, as an individual, is not supposed to be that important.

All popes have their individual priorities and areas of expertise. Sure. But…

Which is why it’s all the more important that they humbly submit those interests and priorities, those particular charisms, to service of the life of a complex, deep, broad Church that belongs to Christ, not to them.

***

Before I move on to specifics, I want to say something about discussing these issues.

And it’s time to do so without the spectre of being caricatured as a a “Francis-Hater” or that you must consider yourself “One of the Greatest Catholics of All Time.” Ignore that kind of discourse. It’s lazy.

It’s time to do so without the discussion-silencing claim that any critique of the current papacy must – must – come from a fearful identification with American capitalism rather than an embrace of Catholic social teaching.

There’s also no reason to feel guilty about engaging in this discussion or – honestly – not liking Pope Francis very much. It is awesome to be in the presence of the successor of St. Peter, and it is a great gift that Jesus gave us, Peter, the Rock. But it is just a matter of historical fact that not all popes are great, popes make mistakes and sin. Respect for and value of the office does not mean we must feel caught up in emotion about any pope, even the present one.

Years ago, I was in intense email discussion with someone who was considering leaving the Church, so scandalized was he by the sexual abuse scandals. He was not personally affected, but he had intimate knowledge of it all and had to write about it. I absolutely understood his pain, because it’s pain anyone would – and should – feel. But I made this argument to him over and over:

Look. The Church we’re in is the Church that is not confined by time or space. The Church we’re in in the present moment is the Church of 42, of 477, of 1048, of 1684, of 1893. The institutional sins and failures of the present moment are real, but no less real are the sins, failures and general weirdness of the past 2000 years. Look at the history of the papacy in the 9th and 10th centuries. If you can hold onto apostolic succession after studying that chaos, then nothing else is ever going to shake you.

(Oh, it didn’t work. He left the Church. For another church, no less scandal-ridden than this one, but oh well)

This applies to the discussion at hand, as well. Frantic, defensive fear that critiquing any aspect of any recent papacy would call into question one’s faith in Christ’s gift of Petrine ministry is silly. Our discussions should be grounded in humility and an acceptance of our limited understanding, but wondering if a Pope is doing or saying the right thing does not make one an unfaithful Catholic or a sedevacantist.

The inevitable concerntrolling respone is going to be, “Sure, you can say all that, but you know that a lot of the people speaking about Pope Francis are…”

Hey, guess what?

I don’t care.

It is admittedly challenging to discuss Pope Francis, though, because as much as he talks, there is still often an ambiguity about what he means when he does so. It is difficult to talk about his statements without imposing meaning or motivation from one direction (he doesn’t seem to believe much of anything) or the other (he obviously believes it all, but is just reaching out and being pastoral and accesssible).

So for me, the most fruitful path is to begin by looking at the nature of his speech and the role of the papacy – of any Catholic leader or catechist.

***

So I’ll begin with the notion of humility.

There is no way for one person to judge whether another is a “humble person” unless he has intimate personal knowledge of the other. One could work in a soup kitchen all day long and still be terribly proud. Someone could cook her own meals, wash her own dishes and embrace the beggar on the corner and still be an arrogant jerk in private – or be lovely. We just can’t tell from those external actions. We just can’t.

But what is a bit easier to discuss in a fair manner is the question of humility in leadership, and I think this is worth discussing in relationship to Pope Francis, for the notion that his papacy is marked by “humility” is used as an interpretive tool to the point that it becomes blinding and shuts down discussion. In fact, I think it’s essential that it be discussed, for what concerns me is the misappropriation of that word: “humble.”

Pope Francis, it seems to me, is described as a “humble” leader for a few reasons:

He rejects various aspects of papal ceremonial.

He moved out of the papal apartments.

He says things like bishops should “smell like their sheep.”

He emphasizes the “bishop of Rome” title.

He says he values decentralization and dialogue, has had a Synod and tweaked the Curial structures just a bit.

Perhaps.

But perhaps it is also fair to ask…

..knowing the role of the Pope, and understanding how easily misunderstood the role of the Pope is by most people today, is it a mark of humble leadership to allow your own words to become the dominant public face of Catholicism – on a daily basis?

So here’s the paradox. No, the contradiction: to brush away certain external expressions of papal authority while actually doubling down on the authority. Communicating in one way the supposed diminishing of the role while at the same time using the role to speak authoritatively to the entire world out of your own priorities on a daily basis.

If this isn’t clear, think of it this way: Change up the situation and imagine it happening in your workplace, your school or your parish with a new boss, principal or pastor.

What would you think then?

Here’s another comparison:

The Catholic Mass developed over time as an elaborate ritual in which the priest-celebrant was hidden behind a mysterious language, ceremony and vestments. It was, it was claimed, necessary to strip all of that so that the people could more directly encounter Christ. The end result is that all we have to look at now is the priest, and the “proper” celebration of Mass is completely dependent on his personal manner and how his style makes us feel.

One wonders if this is the best way to encourage humble leadership.

So to bring it back around to the matter of the individual and the value of formal structure that I raised above, the argument is made, “It is good for the Pope to break free of all of that. People need to encounter the Pope as a person who cares about them. It’s super humble.”

True to an extent, I guess, but again the risk of personality enters into it. I suppose I have to ask, bluntly, why is it important that I be assured that the Pope cares about me or wants to hug my kid or looks me in the eye? More importantly, is it good that I should feel that I need that and that a leader feeds into that need?

Is that encouraging me to look to Christ alone as my solace? Is it humility?

Any servant leader must be a listener, be open and engaged. We meet Christ in each other and by loving others. But the current discussion – that doesn’t begin with the present papacy, and goes, rather, back to John Paul II – that we know Jesus better because the Pope tells us he gets us and he loves usand carries his own briefcase! – is not healthy, feeds into the equating of emotionalism with faith, and is borderline idolatrous.

57 Responses

I really appreciate your perspective on this. I personally love Pope Francis and find him to be faithful to the Church, and I think his comments are often misquoted and misunderstood (which admittedly is partially his fault due to his off-the-cuff approach). But you are so right that he doesn’t have to be perfect, and we don’t need to rush to present him as such.

I think Pope Francis either has t learn to speak with clarity or get another translator. This constant commotion that he causes every time he attempts to make a statement and does so in such a way that leaves everything he says up to interpretation hurts the faith of many. Apparently he does not grasp the concept of leadership and thinks that he can just spew out vague concepts and then walk them back when he causes a commotion. He makes it even more difficult for Catholic both lay and clergy who are left trying to explain to both Catholics and non Catholics that he has not gone off the reservation.

The way i see it- every pope in my lifetime communicated a great deal by both what they said, and didn’t say, – did and didn’t do. And the choices they make -to highlight a particular issue or quality in appointees or what they choose to do or who to meet or what to speak about inevitably brings risks of misunderstanding . And even mistakes as we are talking human beings and a very human institution . But they believed it was so important they risked misunderstanding or even mistakes to reinforce a clear message of what they wanted to communicate to everyone.

For me, Francis’ message about reaching out to the margins of society and focusing on first a pastoral and merciful approach – is so central to his mission that he is even willing to risk a theological misunderstanding in a statement or appoint someone who is considered less doctrinaire than to miss reinforcing his pastoral message.

I fully appreciate that others don’t agree with his approach – but I am not so sure that it is really that different than the doctrinal purity approach that dominated church communication and filtered appointments in recent years. It is not an exaggeration to say that some in Church office thought the definition and role of being pastoral was to be the most rigid reinforcer of church doctrine. We all knew it turned some people away but rather that then even a remote risk of a misunderstanding on doctrine.

I don’t get caught up in the humility talk but do see the Pope consciously modeling his actions to what he expects from bishops, priests and laity, Saying daily mass ( and offering a brief homily) publicly kneeling for his own confession,greeting folks after mass are about sending a message and modeling expected behavior from the top . I agree it risks mixed messages but suspect that is a risk the Pope is willing to take.

When you look at the old books–and I mean ALL of them–they never presented the specific personality and approach of the (then) current Pope as a reason to become Catholic…or to stop being Catholic for that matter. You don’t make decisions on eternal matters based upon the idiosyncratic characteristics of one Pope among hundreds. Because we think in centuries, not news cycles.

Rather, you become Catholic because of Christ…to join the Church He founded.

Also, there was a division of labor. Popes dealt with appointments and doctrine: they didn’t try to be pastoral with every person in the whole world from every culture–which is impossible! Rather, they left to local bishops and priests pastoral outreach: they could deal with individual circumstances within the context of their culture.

Well said is an understatement. Longtime reader and head scratcher regarding Francis. Looking forward to further reflections (and instructive rants.) Good thing most here know the Church can handle this even though a lot of folks on all sides will need to make some u-turns to find the Way again after the dust has settled on this pontificate. Thanks Amy.

I think it is fair to say that although he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, St. Paul wrote in a style that at times could give rise to confusion. 2 Peter makes an explicit reference to this problem, and the various Protestant denominations show that in fact his writings have given rise to various sects. Thus, it should not be surprising that the Vicar of Christ also says things that may be ambiguous when taken out of the context of his Catholic faith. As the saying goes: Is the Pope Catholic? I think it is reasonable to assume that he is when he is basically giving the press a sound bite.

Brilliant insights; and thanks for your courage to express what every second Catholic – and non-Catholic Christian – in my personal circle of friends (quite wide) speak about in moments of complete honesty. If the Church of Christ has morphed into “The Church of Francis” something has gone horribly wrong.

God bless you for writing this and for caring. Yes, it is time to speak – almost past time. There is a duty to speak.
Remember Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said:
“Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”

When a Pope can say “JESUS PROBABLY HAD TO BEG FORGIVENESS OF HIS PARENTS. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it. Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain REPROACH” –Dec. 27, 2015 (VATICAN) – we have a real problem.
Here is a chronological list of many such strange statements and events since his election….http://thewildvoice.org/pope-francis-chronology-perspective/

Well stated, Amy. Although I disagree that the our current state of instant communication is partly to blame. We rarely seemed to have this problem under PBXVI (a truly humble man).

What we have here is a man that grew up under the corrupting influence of Peronism, and was trained in a Jesuit seminary during the 1960s. What could possibly go wrong? Well, we’re seeing the fruits of the post-Conciliar Church right before our very eyes. The Modernists finally have their man in Jorge Bergoglio. And the cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, his recent comments on contraception are heresy.

I converted to Catholicism from agnosticism six years ago after a careful reading of Church history. In other words, I came from a very liberal background to find the trust and beauty in Christ’s Church. Maybe it’s good I did it in this way, and not through the talking heads of the “Catholic right.”

I have a great appreciation for Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. I stopped listening to Catholic radio this past year mainly due to its politically conservative (republican/libertarian/tea party) leanings. I am a fan of Father Martin, which I have found conservative Catholics are not.

I guess what I am trying to say is that American Catholicism has seemingly gone from the disastrous post-Vatican II left-leaning heterodoxy and is now edging on an equally disastrous right-leaning fundamentalism that places issues of contraception and gay marriage above the needs of those at the margins. My wife and I will always be Orthodox Catholic. We do not dissent to any Church teaching, but we have stopped supporting radio channels, websites, and apologists who claim to be the voice of the Church, but, rather, are more the voice of conservative America. Such a pity.

I agree, but with one crucial point to make. The first spiritual work of mercy is to “instruct the ignorant.”. If so many are “confused” as seems to be, it should be taking into account that this is a good time to teach those among us, who just don’t know. In today’s “sound bite” world, it seems to be many.

Symptoms of humility can also be signs of pride. Staying at the Martha’s Guest House in lieu of moving into the Papal apartments could be more pride than humility. What would we say if a President Trump decided not to live in the White House and chose a more convenient location where he could come and go with more ease?

“Which is why, traditionally, popes didn’t do a lot of public talking.”

No, the reason why was that it was not prudent under those conditions. Just as before the printing press, or social communications, judgments about the prudence of public speaking would arrive at different conclusions.

Post definition of papal infallibility for instance, the public now have very clear boundaries to know when a pope’s statement might be infallible.
Now, with internet blogs such as yours, the pope does not need to parse everything he says.

I regularly thank the Holy Spirit for giving us a pope who speaks lots and speaks freely. It has never been so easy for me to have conversations at work to explain why the pope is not approving contraception. And so many people I work with now give more value to the Catholic point of view.

I am always amazed how each pope seems to be suited to the times (at least the past century or so!)

Actually, the telegraph became widely available in the early 1900’s: the Popes could have gotten instant coverage.

A problem is that the Pope is not explaining such things as the prohibition against artificial brith control: rather, he confuses matters, and holds forth on politically correct topics such as immigration, but is less vocal on other topics such as civil unions. See his last press conference: the difference was striking!

Don’t agree with you one bit. Worshipping a version of the papacy is wrong. That seems to me what you about in this article. Even the cartoon illustrates how tightly controlled you want the pope to be. Not much room for the Holy Spirit in your Catholic worldview.

For the sake of fairness, I would have liked to have seen a similar post written when Ignatius Press was publishing each and every syllable that Joseph Ratzinger ever wrote in his life, touting him as the superlative “teaching pope.” Similarly, when Benedict, having either silenced or outlived every theologian who was present with him at the Council, claimed to be the sole and authoritative interpreter of the hermeneutic of it.

@Anonymous. Please. Ignatius is a publishing house that was the publisher of all his writings by a legal agreement. They were simply trying to sell them. And people did seem to appreciate it, as they seemed to buy them.

If your complaint is people who were fans of Benedict, that’s fine. But Ignatius is motivated by profit, as well as an evangelical spirit.

You should see my people during Mardi Gras season, Amy, here in deep, deep South Louisiana. Whether French, Creole, Spanish, or Italian, our blood runs hot — and we say lots of stupid things when our blood is running hot. I guess that’s why, even though very few of my people are very fond of Pope Francis, the worst I’ve ever heard said about him is, “He’s got the hot blood. Bless his heart.” (Translation: “He’s just as big an embarrassment at Thanksgiving as Uncle Henri! What an idiot!!!”) We Deep South Catholics have survived wars and rumors of wars for almost 175 years now in a (still) hostile environment by having gracious and civilized code language with which to communicate with each other. Perhaps a resurrection of Vatican “Romanita” taught to our people might be helpful. Perfection isn’t necessary. Given the current conditions, I think comparatively speaking, at a formal dinner I’d be far happier seeing a woman using her shrimp fork to eat her salad than using it to scratch her bottom. Language matters!

Good post! I don’t disagree with it. A traditionalist friend of mine seemed to think I would. And he did because I defend Pope Francis a lot (including an entire book on the topic), and so he thinks I am “Pollyanna.”

Well, I defend him because the job of the apologist is to help the flock from being confused and lacking confidence in their faith and in this instance, in their Shepherd (thus, some “popesplaining” on my part). All of the individual “scandals” that have been brought up are either true on an individual basis or not.

As I have studied the ones that I did study, I found nothing that is contrary to the faith or orthodoxy.

Now an entire narrative has been built up about the Holy Father that I don’t buy: either that he is a relentlessly imprecise incompetent (relatively more charitable take) or heterodox conspirator loose cannon (less charitable traditionalist or radical Catholic reactionary take).

When cynical or even semi- or fully conspiratorial narratives are built up, then the problem is that folks start to view everything through that biased, unfocused lens rather than by the facts of any given matter.

It’s quite similar to what we see in politics now. “Trump hates Hispanics” [even though he just got more votes from them in the Nevada caucus than Hispanics Rubio and Cruz combined]. One thing is the narrative that “everyone” accepts; the other is a hard fact that would seem to weigh against it. Or we heard that Rubio is “robotic” [because of one poor debate where he repeated himself: big wow]. People start to believe a narrative and all else is interpreted based on that. But we have to determine whether it is true in the first place as a solid premise.

That’s what we have now. Everyone appears to want to join in on the fashionable bandwagon, complaining about the pope. I’m not talking about you (you seem “moderate” and reasonable about it), but the general trend.

It’s very typical postmodernist mushy subjectivism. Everything is about perception and feeling and what “everyone else” is thinking (ad populum fallacy) rather than seriously getting to the bottom of specific instances. When I have done the latter, as an apologist (or sort of temporary journalist), I have found nothing that troubled me. In a few instances, I was confused and even a little troubled at first glance, but when I looked closely into it, I no longer was.

I then try to pass on what I have found to others, to see if it is helpful to them. But more and more people don’t care at all about that. It’s almost to the point of a mass delusion now. People think Pope Francis is a certain way and facts no longer matter (if they ever did).

Now, you say that tomorrow you’ll be getting “specific about walls and contraception.” If indeed “popesplaining” is a bad thing that we shouldn’t be doing so much of, and we should ratchet down all the attention paid to the Holy Father, why not refrain from that, and just ignore it? :-) Be an example of what you are urging others to be: not to be so concerned about every last jot and tittle of what the pope says.

Just a thought . . . love your writing as always and I hope you are well these days and enjoying a blessed Lent.

In the case of Ignatius Press, I think it’s fair to say that there was a lot more than just a profit motive in making the writings of Joseph Ratzinger ubiquitous in Catholic circles. I think Fr. Joseph Fessio in particular was determined to make the mind of Benedict as widely known as possible. The Benedict papacy had the effect of making the pope the “theologian-in-chief.” I don’t think that’s where we necessarily need to be. It’s not really the pope’s role, and I think Amy’s post makes the same point.

Because for almost 50 years now our seminaries no longer have language requirements. I was fortunate enough to go thru seminary at an Episcopal institution when it was still vaguely Christian. At least in my time we had relatively few pregnant lesbians attempting to celebrate the Mass. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were required, and largely regarded as “wash out” classes. Original sources were read in original languages. That’s why there was no such thing as “summer vacation” or “summer ministry.” Summers were spent doing intensive extra work all day every day on Latin , Greek, and Hebrew. I’d never have been able to become a Catholic priest had I not had the education I received as an Anglican. Sadly, we Catholics have to talk to Protestants to even buy a clue of how much we’ve lost in our own intellectual tradition.

There! I feel better now!

(Ms. Wellborn, remember I told you recently that I’ve been terribly merciless ever since I accidentally walked *out* rather than *in* the Door of Mercy at our cathedral. The above comments are not intended to be merciless — just stroppy and tetchy, as is my canonical prerogative as a truly sweet old priest with arthritis and a bad (unused!) prostate.)

Just so, Fr. Frank. My father-in-law once showed a young priest a copy of the 1962 missal. Father paged through it and said “Where’s the Latin?” I’m not sure what language he thought was on the left-hand pages.
On the other hand, we have a priest in our diocese who was ordained six months ago and is offering the Extraordinary Form. Learned it himself.
Quite apart from seminary and catechism classes, the state of education today brings to mind the phrase “weak tea.”

I add my thanks to the rest. You handled this topic honestly, fairly and calmly. Thank you for taking the time. I think many of us were helped in our understanding of this moment in Catholic history by your careful treatment.

Comments are closed.

It is what it is

stories
opinions
observationsphotos.
reviews

Seeker Friendly.

Header Image

Badlands, South Dakota August 2019

Free Fiction

A short story about mothers, daughters, and why we believe what we say we believe…or not.